LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS IN CODE-SWITCHING AND PEDAGOGY
2.1.4 GORDON WELLS' (1982) 'RECIPROCAL INTERACTION MODEL OF LEARNING.'
literature), an unmarked choice in the sense that it is mostly used for in-group interactions. On the other hand, for non-codeswitchers, CS is a "they-code". Additionally, CS can be perceived as a
"code-in-between" in the sense that it is used as a neutral strategy and thus enables the speaker to achieve certain goals that might not be attainable. through the use of only one language (Kamwangamalu 1998:287).
Finally, whether a language qualifies as "we-code", ''they-code'' or "code-in-between" is mainly dependent on the context of the situation and the type of social goals one wishes to achieve in a given speech situation (Kamwangamalu 1998:278). This theoretical framework is pertinent to this research as it is concerned with perceiving English, not as a "they-code" or "we-code", but a neutral code that enables speakers to achieve specific goals, as is the case in the control group of this study. In addition, it is relevant in that among English monolinguals and non-codeswitchers, CS might be perceived as a "they-code"; by codeswitchers who do not wish their English monolinguals to know what they are talking about, as a "we-code"; and by codeswitchers in the experimental classroom, as a "code-in-between". I shall,however, return to this discussion, in chapter 3.
2.1.4 GORDON WELLS' (1982) 'RECIPROCAL INTERACTION MODEL OF
Model of Learning' is proposed as a more appropriate alternative to the dominant transmission model of pedagogy.
Wells' theory is based on the premise that children do not only learn a language, but that they learn through language. Hence, Wells stresses language as a resource and thus emphasises the interactional context in which language is learned. Much of Wells' work is based on studies of children's acquisition of first language in the home through spontaneous and relatively unstructured interaction with parents and other members ofthe family. However, he maintains that the kind of spontaneous interaction that occurs thus can occur in the classroom for both first and second language speakers if the apt environment is created in the classroom (Wells 1985:23,35;
Wells 1998). Thus, Wells' model of learning has relevance to this study which involves ESL learners and for whom code-switching can be perceived as a resource.
The principles ofthe Reciprocal Interactional Approach that are ofrelevance to my study are: (a) A focus on function rather than form; (b) Learning through collaboration and negotiation of meaning; and (c) Making optimal use oflearners' NL in the classroom (Wells 1981, 1988,1999;
Wells 1985; Measures et al. 1997; Canale 1992). A discussion of each of these principles and their significance to this study follows.
(a) A focus on function rather than form:
Like Gumperz (1982), (see section 2.1.1), Wells emphasises the need to recognize language not merely as a system ofsyntax, but also pragmatically i.e. the uses to which it is put. The Reciprocal Interactional Approach focuses on the need for learners to focus on the meaning that is being communicated and the use of language for a variety of functions in the acquisition of a second
language rather than the construction ofgrammatically correct sentences. Wells argues that when learners interact with each other through language, the production ofgrammatically well fonned sentences is not an end in itself, but a means to communicating information;· establishing . relationships with others and to engage them in joint activities (Wells 1985:22; Cummins 1984:224; 1989:24). This tenet is of significance to this study as (as also noted in the discussion ofGumperz's 'Interactional Model') the communicative intent of pupils is of greater value than the syntax employed to convey their meaning. As an instance, consider the following interactions between teacher and pupil in the lessons 'The Suit' and 'Kid Playboy' of the control and experimental· groups respectively:
I. LESSON ON 'THE SUIT' [CONTROL GROUP, sample appendix 3b]:
T If you were Phi lemon, what would you do?
P Yes, you see that man there, I want to punch him.
11. LESSON ON "KID PLAYBOY" [EXPERIMENTAL GROUP, appendix 4a]:
T So, what can you say here? ... Charity? .
P We heard that Motsitsi have waited for the wedding to come because the wedding will start on Saturday till on Sunday then he waited that will continue on the Dube house. He wear his top hat and tails made ready to go to Dube. His trousers was not enough iron pressed then the one who stand on the door giving the visitors cards....
In both these examples, although pupils' responses are not grammatically accurate, the message is coherent and can be easily understood.
(b) Learning through collaboration and negotiation of meaning:
According to Wells (1985:23), because language is concerned with communication of meaning, it is essentially collaborative in nature. He maintains that peer-reinforced language development is one of the strongest motivators for language development. Collaborative activity in the classroom "has the potential to provide for multiplezones ofproxima1development", and through group discussion, to create opportunities for the distribution of ideas, present multiple points of view, and expertise within the group (Measures et al. 1997:21; Wells 1999:2). In this way, Wells maintains, that the responsibility for the construction of knowledge is shared among all participants. It is through the "interanimation ofvoices" that new meanings are constructed. For example, in recordings of children in interaction, Wiles (1985:87) shows that when children are given opportunities for interaction with each other, they display an impressive linguistic range and support each other by suggesting 'right' words and modelling whole sentences for their peers.
Wells (1985) notes that one ofthe most enriching experiences ofall for children is the open-ended exploratory talk that arises from reading of stories. Several investigators (e.g. Spack 1985; Duff and Maley 1990; Stem 1991) have noted the language that occurs in this context is much more complex, both semantically and syntactically.
In addition, Wiles (1985:88) states that collaborative, small-group learning is of great benefit to the L2 learner but it needs to be structured and nurtured by the teacher. As progress in language development can only be made by allowing children to experience a wide range ofinteractions in which meaning and behaviour can be negotiated, it is imperative for teachers to create the conditions for interactions in which meaning can be negotiated. This tenet of the Reciprocal Interactional Model is of special significance to this study as the very nature of literature allows for an exploration of ideas. On this note, Duff and Maley (1990:6) point out:
"The fact that literary texts are, by their very essence, open to multiple interpretation means that only rarelywilltwo readers' understanding ofor reaction to a given text be identical. This ready-made opinion gap between one individual's interpretation and another's canbebridged by genuine interaction."
(c) Making optimal use of learners' NL in the classroom:
Within Wells' (1982) theoretical framework, the learners' NL skills are important (Canale 1992:285). Canale suggests that optimal use must be made ofthose communication skills that the learner has developed through the use ofhis NL and which are common to communicative skills required in the L2.
To conclude, Wells' 'Reciprocal Interaction Model of Learning' which postulates that learning is promoted through exploring meanings in the context of interaction with significant others as well as through writing, is of significance to this research for the reasons discussed above. In addition, it is significant because, firstly, this research investigates whether CS affects learners' interaction with each other and with the teacher and how these interactions facilitate learning; and secondly, learners' scholastic performance is measured from scores attainedinwritten tests.
In the next section I present the pertinent literature on the functions of CS in the educational arena.